Website URL

Skype

Twitter

Location

Interests

ETT is a pinwheel design that is grouped into branches of related engineering disciplines.
Premise
Do the Kerbals discover rocketry before winged flight? You decide. Both winged flight and rockets first options. ETT also has an "End Game" so you can play the campaign game with a built in goal.
I love to hear new ideas and don't be afraid to let me know if I have a part or two out of place.
Listed on CKAN or Download at SpaceDock - May break saved games.
Patreon Link or even better, contribute to the tech tree by adding a simple config of a/your part pack!
New GitHub Repository for Contributors:
https://github.com/ProbusThrax/ETT.git (Outdated. Will update soon.) Readme file has instructions.
Scope
A tech tree based on engineering/scientific principles... mostly, that is challenging to unlock yet fun to play through.
Goals & Requirements
1. Branches of the tech tree based on engineering disciplines.
2. The Kerbals discover rocket powered flight before they figure out winged flight. (or vice-versa)
3. Unlocking the entire tech tree is not required but must involve flights to nearby planets.
4. Parts that generate science are spread throughout the disciplines and are not based on which branch you focus on (e.g. Flight, Liquid fueled, Solid, Exotic).
5. The player may unlock just the branches that they are interested in.
6. "End Game", so you can play the campaign game with a built in goal.
Highly Recommended for FLIGHT FIRST option:
Firespitter, SXT and/or KAX for propeller parts.
Take Command to use the external command seat for barnstorming... I mean science.
Highly Recommended for ROCKETS first:
Interstellar
KW Rocketry
MRS
SpaceY
FASA
Recommended for the tree overall:
Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb for delta V calculations.
DMagic Orbital Science to boost your science output. @Necro
You can play this tree completely stock, but I believe it is the most fun with several part packs. The many nodes of the tree limits the amount of parts that show up in the editor which makes it easier to find the part you are looking for.
Included:
AIES by @carmics
ALCOR by @alexustas
AmpYear Power Manager by @JPLRepo
Coatl Aerospace ProbesPlus by @akron
CxAerospace by @cxg2827
DarkSideTechnology's Centrifuge by @Badsector
DMagic Orbital Science by @DMagic
DMagic's EVA struts and transfer pipes by @DMagic
EVA Parachutes & Ejection Seats by @linuxgurugamer
Extra-Planetary Launchpads @taniwha
FASA by @frizzank
Infernal Robotics by @sirkut
KAS by @KospY
Kerbal Atomics by @Nertea
Kerbal Engineer by @cybutek
Kerbal Planetary Base System by @Nils277
Kethane by @taniwha
KIS (Kerbal Inventory System) by @KospY
Konstruction by @RoverDude
Launchers Pack by @Kartoffelkuchen
KSP Interstellar Extended @FreeThinker
Landertron by @XanderTek
Lithobrake Exploration Technologies by@NecroBones
Making History by Squad
MKS/OKS by @RoverDude
ModPods by @TiktaalikDreaming
MRS (Modular Rocket Systems) by@NecroBones
Near Future: Electrical by @Nertea
Near Future: Propulsion by @Nertea
Near Future: Spacecraft by @Nertea
Near Future Construction by @Nertea
Rocket Factory by @RaendyLeBeau
Rover Science Revisited by @theSpeare
Real Chutes by @stupid_chris
SETI Probe Parts by @Yemo
Smart Parts by @Firov
SpaceY Expansion by @NecroBones
SpaceY Heavy Lifters by @NecroBones
Station Parts Expansion by @Nertea
Surface Experiment Pack by @AlbertKermin
Surface Lights by @Why485
TAC Life Support by @TaranisElsu
Tarsier Space Technology by @JPLRepo
Universal Storage by @Paul Kingtiger
USI Core by @RoverDude
USI Sounding Rockets by @RoverDude
USI Exploration Pack by @RoverDude
USI Life Support by @RoverDude
USI Survivability Pack @RoverDude
Ven's Stock Part Revamp by @Ven
Integrated But Untested for 1.4 Part Packs
AntennaRange by @toadicus
AoA Tech Aviation Parts by @martinezfg11
Aviation Cockpits by @Mallikas
Aviation Lights by @BigNose
Atomic Age by @Porkjet
B9 by @bac9
Behemoth Aerospace Engineering by @greystork
BDArmory by @BahamutoD
Bluedog Design Bureau by @CobaltWolf
Corvus by @Orionkermin
Cryogenic Engines by @Nertea
CryoTanks by @Nertea
Deadly Reentry by @NathanKell
Deep Freeze Continued by @JPLRepo
FireSpitter by @Snjo
Fuel Tanks Plus by @NecroBones
HabTech by @benjee10
HoolganLab's Airships by @JewelShisen
K2 Command Pod by @jfjohnny5
Karibou Rover by @RoverDude
KAX - Kerbal Aircraft eXpansion by @keptin
Kerbalism by @ShotgunNinja
Kerbonov Pack by @Sam Hall
KWRocketry by @Kickasskyle
MechJeb (still needs a bit of MM work) @sarbian
Mk2/Mk3 Expansion by @SuicidalInsanity
Mk3 Hypersonic System by @nestor_d
Mk3 mini expansion by @K.Yeon
MOLE - Mark One Laboratory Extensions by @Angel-125
Monkey Business, Inc Parts by @blacsky33
Near Future: Solar by @Nertea
OPT by @K.Yeon
Procedural Fairings by @e-dog
Procedural Parts by @OtherBarry
Remote Tech
RetroFuture Planes by @nli2work
RLA Stockalike by @hoojiwana
Rovers and Roadsters by @AlphaAsh
ScanSat by @DMagic
Solaris Hypernautics by @Carbonjvd
Soviet Engines by @BobCat
Stock Extension by @Lack
Stock Launch Pad by @sciencepanda
Stockalike Parts for Useful Esthetics by @TurboNisu
Tantares LV by @Beale
Taurus HCV by @bsquiklehausen
I've made ETT compatible with nodes used by @NerteaChris Adderley's CTT (click here) but CTT itself is not compatible with an ETT campaign.
Thanks to all those who have helped me get this far, @yongedevil, @troyfawkes, @NathanKell, @Artfact, @Bahamut, @inigma,
@odya-kun, @SpaceNomad, @linuxgurugamer
Keep the feedback coming.
Released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license. You are free to redistribute and modify the work so long as it is not used for commercial purposes.

What would it take to freeze a human for upwards of 100 million years (enough time for the universe's structure to noticeably change) and still be able to revive them afterwards?
Could i get to see the end of the universe? Pretty please?

(I don't use FAR)
Are you putting your engines slightly below center of mass to counteract pitch down from lift?
How do you engineer ideal wing AoA?
How can I engineer level lift force at 100m/s?
How are you calculating sufficient air intake?
How are you calculating which landing gear size to use?
How can I calculate ideal cruising altitude and speed?

Artificial Intelligence: Can we redesign the world?
So I have thought about how AI systems are become so much more powerful and complex. So along those lines could computer system AI become self learning enough like google DEEPMIND project to improve just about everything? :
Antivirus software with DEEPMIND rooted together so that another computer system could repeatedly attempt to hack with various viruses, then after such a point the Antivirus software with DEEPMIND becomes aware of creating a defense or destroying the virus as soon as detected. Redesign the virus attacking computer to become aware that it has still not found a route of taking control of the device, as this cause the DEEPMIND system would be added to the virus computer to make that happen. As well as come up with combinations of the current viruses to learn and then create more complex viruses of it's own to unlimited possibilities. This in turn could maybe help some networks get an antivirus software that would be incredibly unbeatable. "Antivirus software" is a relative term as to what software it would actually be called, would be up to the designer of course.
DEEPMIND self learning AI could possibly learn the capabilities of the current computer system the AI is working in then calculate all kinds of different computer technology improvements. For example the move from HDD to Solid State Drives, seem to be a great step. Of my own curiosity would multiple flash drives being so small, be converted together easily enough to make like say a 40-500 Terabyte Solid State Hard Drive of sorts?
This might be the ultimate kicker if two computers are running DEEPMIND and they both begin communication with each other, in an effort to improve their AI. Would it be possible for the DEEPMIND AI on each machine to learn to create just about anything. Such as a biological organism 3D printer for lack of a better term, in which case tissue of a person could be sampled to create a whole new organ within hours. This is just another thought of no evidence or research yet.
With such efficient ways to have computers redesign various capabilities of current technology, I believe I read that the DEEPMIND AI developed a way to reduce cooling cost of googles systems by 40%.
Along with all those aspects imagine the future designs this system could create for Aerospace, Rocket design, Possibly another way to enter space in a vehicle made to take flight and at a distance predetermined to quickly speed up the the Earth's atmosphere. Although if such technology becomes available likely this won't be a issue. Alien technology UFO you may think of in this case to explore space more quickly than we have ever before.
These are just various comments on possibly some ways DEEPMIND AI could help advance the world. In no way do I say these are feasible or close to even happening at this point. With an Artificial Intelligence system and nano-technology and creative ingenuity, seems like most anything is possible perhaps probable. Just some interesting thoughts in my opinion. Have a great day.
Thanks, for reading

Hi, we all notice that when the radial decouplers are activated, they remain attached to the "root" part, so i imagine they still count as dead wasting weight, am i right?
Or are they weightless once activated?
Wouldn´t be better to vanilla be placed inversed? I mean, once activated, they would go out with the unattached tank or so.
Trying to place them reversed, i sadly find they sink inside the tanks and im not able to even pick them for moving outside with the gizmo.
Any idea if it is doable?
Thanks

Given a tank, T0, which is full, of volume Vo, and number of tanks, T1, T2, T3, and T4... Tn, which are all empty and same size, Vi:
How long does it tank for T0 to empty, assuming it can (e.g. its Vo < Vi * n)?

Ok, so that was probably a bit of an overstatement to say that absolutely everybody uses canards all the time, but it still got me wondering...
I had never heard of canards before playing KSP. I might have seen a plane with canards IRL, but I don't recall it if I have. Most planes that I see do not have have them (although this might be a biased sample as the majority of planes are passenger airlines, and have a very specific purpose and therefore a very specific design). If I were to draw a 'typical' plane then it would have wings and a tail with elevators, and I might even be able to stretch to a delta-wing with elevons. I'm not saying that they don't exist IRL, but they are just a lot less common (to me)
So why is it this way? Probably about 30% of atmoplanes and spaceplances I see on this forum have canards. (Why) are canards better for KSP than in real life? Or to turn the question around, why don't we see as many planes IRL with canards?

During my Engineering Design seminar today, my teacher mentioned the Kerstan Blunder.
That's the quote directly from his slide.
My question to you is "Did this mission happen?"
I did some research online, and it didn't seem like the U.S. launched a Vigor probe, and it doesn't look like Japan or the USSR did, either.
But what did you find? Was this just a misname? Was there a mission like this, but to a different planet?

When selecting (non-wheeled) landing gear, how are you solving this problem:
Given a landing mass, gravity, and anticipated impact speed:
What is the correct gear count, type, spring strength, and dampening strength?
I am using experience/guesswork to make my choices now, so answers in that ballpark won't help much. Looking for the mathematics behind the parts, or experimental results someone has collected.

(I think this is a general question and not particularly related to any specific craft - but if a specific example would be useful then I can upload one later.)
I recall reading that attaching items radially are affected by drag, and that items attached in a stack are not. What happens if you attach an RCS thruster behind a wing (where you would usually attach control surfaces)? Is that radial or stacked, and (more importantly) is it affected by drag?
I think that I also recall reading that it doesn't matter how it has been offset and rotated, the item still behaves the same as if it were not offset or rotated. I assume that this means that I can make a RCS thruster look like it is attached on the body just behind the wing, when it is actually attached to the wing just next to the body?
Final questing: do RCS thrusters work inside cargo bays? IRL that would not work, but I wonder if the game engine is simplified enough to get away with it.

I am optimising a spaceplane that I successfully got to orbit, docked and de-orbited. It flies really nicely, has great manoeuvrability, can land really gently but could do with a bit of work getting it to dock nicely. It has 2 Mk1 Inline Cockpits, and I think that I want to change it for a Mk1 Crew Cabin. I am going to use it for crew rotations - no cargo.
Detailed analysis if you really want it:
The advantages that I see are that it does not require a pilot to be one of the crew that is rotating, as well as being marginally lighter and cheaper (20Kerbucks saved - woo) and the other specs are about the same. I could also use it for tourists too. Having a cargo bay has the small advantage that I can put other radially attached parts in there too to avoid drag (mechjeb is the main one).
The big disadvantage is that if I loose power then I am completely dead in the water space, whereas if I had a command module I could at least manoeuvre using RCS or control surfaces, or fire the engine when I am pointing in approximately in the right direction. Another small disadvantage is that there are 3 things in the plane instead of 2, this makes it slightly longer and has more places for it going spaghetti on me (it does have enough lift to tear itself apart at mach3 under 10km altitude).
I guess that I have a few more options in placing components wrt getting the CoM in the right place, but equally more complexity.
Any more advantages or disadvantages that I have missed?

At present, I use the small decoupler for small radial stages and the larger one with standoff for larger stages. Doesn't feel like good engineering to me.
Cost aside, what does math say about when you should pick each of the five radial decouplers?

(Aerodynamics aside) do adapters, like the two Rockomax Brand Adapters affect the structural integrity of a craft, or are they merely aesthetic? In other words, if an adapter is placed between a 2.5m tank and a 1.25m tank, is that design stronger in some way than a 1.25m tank connected directly to a 2.5m tank?
Is there a (hopefully launch pad) experiment that can be devised to prove either case?
What is the KSP stress model? How does it determine when two parts have undergone enough shear, torsional, or tensile stress for their connection to fail?